Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

AI Tool Helps Physician Group Manage Prescription Refills

Posted on April 25, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Most of the time, when we hear about AI projects people are talking about massive efforts spanning millions of records and many thousands of patients. A recent blog item, however, suggests that AI can be used to improve comparatively modest problems faced by physician groups as well.

The case profiled in the blog involves Western Massachusetts-based Valley Medical Group, which is using machine learning to manage medication refills. The group, which includes 115 providers across four centers, implemented a product known as Charlie, a cloud-based tool made by Healthfinch 18 months ago. (I should note, at this point, that the blog maintained is by athenaHealth, which probably has a partnership with Healthfinch. Moving on…)

Charlie is a cloud-based tool which automates the process of prescription refills by integrating with EHRs. Charlie processes refill requests much like a physician or pharmacist would, but more quickly and probably more thoroughly as well.

According to the blog item, Charlie pulls in refill requests from the practice’s EHR then adds relevant patient data to the requests. After doing so, Charlie then runs the requests through an evidence-based rules engine to detect whether the request is in protocol or out of protocol. It also detects duplicates. errors and other problems. Charlie can also absorb specific protocols which let it know what to look for in each refill request it processes.

After 18 months, Valley’s refill process is far more efficient. Of the 10,000 refill requests that Valley gets every month, 60% are handled by a clerical person and don’t involve a clinician. In addition, clerical staff workloads have been cut in half, according to the practice’s manager of healthcare informatics.

Another benefit Valley saw from rolling out Charlie with that they found out which certain problems lay. For example, practice leaders found out that 20% of monthly refill requests were duplicate requests. Prior to implementing the new tool, practice staff spent a lot of time investigating the requests or worse, filling them by accident.

This type of technology will probably do a lot for medium-sized to larger practices, but smaller ones probably can’t afford to invest in this kind of technology. I have no idea what Healthfinch charges for Charlie, but I doubt it’s cheap, and I’m guessing its competitors are charging a bundle for this stuff as well. What’s more, as I saw at #HIMSS18, vendors are still struggling to define the right AI posture and product roadmap, so even if you have a lot of cash buying AI is still a somewhat risky play.

Still, if you’re part of a small practice that’s rethinking its IT strategy, it’s good to know that technologies like Charlie exist. I have little doubt that over time — perhaps fairly soon — vendors will begin offering AI tools that your practice can afford. In the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt to identify processes which seem to be wasting a lot of time or failing to get good results. That way, when an affordable tool comes along to help you’ll be ready to go.

Cloud-Based EHRs With Analytics Options Popular With Larger Physician Groups

Posted on April 20, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Ever wonder what large medical practices want from the EHRs these days? According to one study, the answer is “cloud-based systems with all the bells and whistles.”

Black Book Research just completed a six-month client satisfaction poll questioning members of large practices about their EHR preferences. The survey collected data from roughly 19,000 EHR users.

According to the survey, 30% of practices with more than 11 clinicians expect to replace their current EHR by 2021, primarily because they want a more customizable system. It’s not clear whether they are sure yet which vendors offer the best customization options, though it’s likely we’ll hear more about this soon enough.

Among groups planning an EHR replacement, what appealed to them most (with 93% ranking it as their preferred option) was cloud-based mobile solutions offering an array of analytical options. They’re looking for on-demand data and actionable insights into financial performance, compliance tracking and tools to manage contractual quality goals. Other popular features included telehealth/virtual support (87%) and speech recognition solutions for hands-free data entry (82%).

Among those practices that weren’t prepared for an EHR replacement, it seems that some are waiting to see how internal changes within Practice Fusion and eClinicalWorks play out. That’s not surprising given that both vendors boasted an over 93% customer loyalty level for Q1 2018.

The picture for practices with less than six or fewer physicians is considerably different, which shouldn’t surprise anybody given their lack of capital and staff time.  In many cases, these smaller practices haven’t optimized the EHRs they have in place, with many failing to use secure messaging, decision support and electronic data sharing or leverage tools that increase patient engagement.

Large practices and smaller ones do have a few things in common. Ninety-three percent of all sized medical and surgical practices using an installed, functional EHR system are using three basic EHR tools either frequently or always, specifically data repositories, order entry and results review.

On the other hand, few small to midsize groups use advanced features such as electronic messaging, clinical decision support, data sharing, patient engagement tools or interoperability support. Again, this is a world apart from the higher-end IT options the larger practices crave.

For the time being, the smaller practices may be able to hold their own. That being said, other surveys by Black Book suggest that the less-digitalized practices won’t be able to stay that way for long, at least if they want to keep the practice thriving.

A related 2018 Black Book survey of healthcare consumers concluded that 91% of patients under 50 prefer to work with digitally-based practices, especially practices that offer conductivity with other providers and modern portals giving them easy access to the health data via both phones and other devices.

Pace of Technological Innovation

Posted on April 18, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Sometimes you come across a chart that blows your mind and causes you to step back and reconsider your perspective. That’s what happened to me when I saw this chart shared by Sandeep Plum MD. The chart shows every major technological innovation in the last 150 years and how they have changed the way we work. More specifically, I think it shows how technology has improved the output we’re able to create.

This chart is pretty astonishing to consider. I’d like to dig into the data some more, but no doubt the concept of technology allowing us to produce more is something we’ve all experienced. The amount of leisure time we have compared to farmers even 150 years ago is astonishing to consider.

The problem in healthcare is that many people will wonder why healthcare hasn’t seen the same increase in output. The reality is that we have seen an improvement. The challenge in healthcare is the care we provide has become much more complex and the regulations around that care have become more complex as well. So, the increased output doesn’t feel the same because of these added complexities.

When thinking about healthcare complexity I always like to think about the country doctor back in the day that had the famous black bag and would visit you in your home. What diagnostic tools did he have? Not very much. What treatment options were available to him? Not very many (and a lot of them were very questionable). Compare that to today’s healthcare which has extremely sophisticated diagnostic tools and treatment options. Much of our increased output goes into navigating these tools and options.

The same is true for the increased regulation and reimbursement requirements. How did the country doc handle documentation and reimbursement? He might have written a few notes on a sheet of paper. Underscore the might. The country doc didn’t have to worry about insurance requirements, prior authorizations, CPT codes, or other complexities that make medical billing so time-consuming. He just asked the patient if they could pay. Sometimes that meant he was taking a pig home with him as payment, but he didn’t have to worry about insurance claims denials or sending out patient bills.

This is why I think so many doctors are frustrated by technology. The technology has improved their output, but in many ways that improved output has just been pushed to satisfy bureaucratic requirements as opposed to improving care and making the doctor more efficient.

The good news is that the pace of technological change will continue. It’s not too hard to see the day when a doctor goes into an exam room and the documentation that’s required for reimbursement and continuity of care just happens automatically. We’re not there yet, but the technology to make that a reality is. The only question is whether we can stem the increase in regulations that are eating away all that increased output that technology provides.

Almost 20 Percent of CDS Alert Dismissals May Be Inappropriate

Posted on April 13, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

The number of alerts generated by clinical decision support systems can be overwhelming for clinicians. It’s little wonder that the Joint Commission has long identified alert fatigue as a critical safety issue for providers, particularly given how many turn out to be unimportant or even irrelevant.

Unfortunately, however, there’s a flipside to this issue. Sometimes, CDS alerts can actually prevent care problems, clearly suggesting that clinicians shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand either. In fact, recently-published research found that at least in an ICU setting, overriding alerts might be associated with patient harm.

The study, which appeared in BMJ Quality & Safety, focused on the nature and impact of medication-related CDS overrides in the ICU. To conduct the analysis, the authors gathered data on adults admitted to any of six ICUs between July 2016 and April 2017.

The research team looked at a total of 2,448 overridden alerts from 712 unique patient encounters. The studies looked at patients with provider-overridden CDS alerts for dose, drug allergies, drug-drug interaction, geriatric and renal alerts. They also looked at how frequently patients suffered adverse drug events following alert overrides and the risk of adverse drug events given the appropriateness of the overrides.

A team of two independent reviewers concluded that while 81.6% of the overrides were appropriate, the roughly 19% remaining were inappropriate.

Researchers found that inappropriate overrides were associated with a greater risk of adverse drug events. In addition, they concluded that they could find more potential and definite adverse drug events following inappropriate overrides than appropriate overrides. They also found that inappropriate overrides were associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events.

Overall, inappropriate overrides were six times as likely to be associated with potential and definite adverse drug events.  That’s too big a correlation to ignore.

One thing the study doesn’t comment on is how the alerts were presented. Given that they may have been presented through multiple interfaces, the question arises of how big a difference those interfaces make in how clinicians respond to alerts. It could be that these interfaces have more impact than the clinical content of the alerts.

Bottom line, this problem may very well fall under the larger umbrella of usability problems. Just one more reason why the industry needs to keep a laser focus on improving usability in HIT across the board.

EHR Usability Problems Linked To Potential Patient Harm

Posted on April 9, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

If you’re a clinician, you’ve probably always felt that EHR usability problems were a factor in some patient care glitches. Now, there’s some research backing up this hunch. While the numbers of EHR-specific events represented in the study are relatively low, its lead researcher said that it probably underestimated the problem by several orders of magnitude.

The study, which was profiled in the American Journal of Managed Care concluded, that at least some patient safety events were attributable to usability issues. The study, which was just published in JAMA, involved the analysis of nearly 2 million reported safety events taking place from 2013 to 2016 in 571 healthcare facilities in Pennsylvania. The data also included records from a large mid-Atlantic multi-hospital academic medical system.

Of the 1.735 million reports, 1,956 (0.11%) directly mentioned an EHR vendor or product. Also, 557 (0.03%) include language explicitly suggesting that usability concerns played a role in possible patient harm, AJMC reported.

Meanwhile, of the 557 events, 84% involved a situation where patients needed to be monitored to preclude harm, 14% of events potentially caused temporary harm, 1% potentially caused permanent harm and under 1% (2 cases), resulted in death.

The lead researcher on the study, Raj Ratwani, PhD, MA, told the AJMC that these issues are unlikely to resolve unless EHR vendors better understand how providers manage the rollout of their products.

Even if the vendor has done a good job with usability, he suggests, healthcare organizations adopting the platform sometimes make changes to the final configuration during their implementation of the product, something which could be undoing some of the smart usability choices and safety choices made by the vendor. “We really need to focus on the variability that’s occurring during the implementation and ensuring that vendors and providers are working together,” Ratwani said.

Along the way, it’s worth pointing out that the researchers themselves feel that the actual number of usability-related patient safety events could be far higher than the study would suggest.

Ratwani cautioned that he and his team took a “very, very conservative approach” to how they analyzed the patient safety reports. In fact, he suspects that since patient safety events are substantially underreported, the number of events related to poor usability is probably also very understated as well.

He also noted that while the study only included reports that explicitly mentioned the name of the vendor or product, clinicians usually don’t include such names when their writing up a safety report.

AAFP Opposes Direction Of Federal Patient Data Access Efforts

Posted on April 4, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Not long ago, a group of federal agencies announced the kickoff of the MyHealthEData initiative, an effort designed to give patients control of their data and the ability to take it with them from provider to provider. Participants in the initiative include virtually every agency with skin in the game, including HHS, ONC, NIH and the VA. CMS has also announced that it will be launching Medicare’s Blue Button 2.0, which will allow Medicare beneficiaries to access and share their health information.

Generally speaking, these programs sound okay, but the devil is always in the details. And according to the American Academy of Family Physicians, some of the assumptions behind these initiatives put too much responsibility on medical practices, according to a letter the group sent recently to CMS administrator Seema Verma.

The AAFP’s primary objection to these efforts is that they place responsibility for the adoption of interoperable health IT systems on physicians. The letter argues that instead, CMS should pressure EHR vendors to meet interoperability standards.

Not only that, it’s critical to prevent the vendors from charging high prices for relevant software upgrades and maintenance, the AAFP argues. “To realize meaningful patient access to their data, we strongly urge CMS to require EHR vendors to provide any new government-required updates such systems without additional cost to the medical practice,” the group writes.

Other requests from the AAFP include that CMS:

  • Drop all HIT utilization measures now that MIPS has offered more effective measures of quality, cost and practice improvement
  • Implement the core measure sets developed by the Core Quality Measures Collaborative
  • Penalize healthcare organizations that don’t share health information appropriately
  • Focus on improving HIT usability first, and then shift its attention to interoperability
  • Work to make sure that admission, discharge and transfer data are interoperable

Though the letter calls CMS to task to some degree, my sense is that the AAFP shares many of the agency’s goals. The physician group and CMS certainly have reason to agree that if patients share data, everybody wins.  The AAFP also suggests measures which foster administrative simplification, such as reducing duplicative lab tests, which CMS must appreciate.

Still, if the group of federal organizations thinks that doctors can be forced to make interoperability work, they’ve got another thing coming. It’s hard to argue the matter how willing they are to do so, most practices have nowhere near the resources needed to take a leading role in fostering health data interoperability.

Yes, CMS, ONC and other agencies involved with HIT must be very frustrated with vendors. There don’t seem to be enough sanctions available to prevent them from slow-walking through every step of the interoperability process. But that doesn’t mean you can simply throw up your hands and say “Let’s have the doctors do it!”

Patients Expect Retail-Style Digital Health Experiences

Posted on March 30, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

The retail industry has been pretty successful in integrating digital tools into their business. All major retailers have customized apps of their own, many if not all retail sites offer chatbots to answer questions and virtually all have spent countless millions on their e-commerce websites.

Healthcare organizations, on the other hand, are far behind when judged by these standards. That’s particularly true in the case of medical practices, few of which offer much in the way of digital sophistication. In fact, in most cases the most patients can hope for is a basic portal offering data, scheduling and bill payment options. (Ok, at times, bigger offices may toss in a kiosk or two, but that’s not a huge service upgrade.)

According to one study, however, consumers are losing patience with this gap. New research by NTT DATA Services has concluded that 59% of US consumers expect their healthcare digital experience to be comparable to their retail digital experience. This is part of a larger trend in which patients are looking for seamless care bringing together diagnosis, treatment, rehab and health promotion, according to Alan Hughes of NTT in a prepared statement.

Some of consumers’ frustrations around mobile options include not being able to accomplish what they wanted to do (62%), feeling that the options offered are not relevant to them (42%) and that entering data into forms took too long to complete (40%). This is not exactly a good report card.

Meanwhile, patients have a long list of services they feel could be improved, including searching for a doctor or specialist (81%), accessing their family health records (80%), making or changing an appointment (79%), accessing test results (76%), paying their bills (75%) and filling a prescription (74%). In other words, consumers see most of the digital services provided by medical practices as subpar. Again, this is not encouraging news.

What’s more, within the general population of consumers, there is one subsection of patients who are particularly demanding, a group NTT has dubbed “explorers.” ITT research found that 78% of explorers say that the digital healthcare experience must improve. Perhaps even more importantly, 50% of these explorers would leave their current doctor if another offered a better digital experience.

If healthcare providers can barely meet the needs of the general population, they’re likely to lose these explorers pretty quickly if they don’t get their act together. Medical practices, in particular, need to step up their digital health game.

Comprehensive Health Record Vs. Connected Health Record

Posted on March 26, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

The “comprehensive health record” model is quite in vogue these days. Epic, in particular, is championing this model, which supplants existing EHR verbiage and integrates social determinants of health. “Most health systems know they have to go beyond their walls,” Epic CEO Judy Faulkner told Healthcare IT News. A number of other EMR vendors have followed Epic’s lead.

To date, however, most clinicians have yet to embrace this model, perhaps because they’re out of patience with the requirements imposed by EHRs. What’s more, the broader healthcare industry hasn’t reached a consensus on the subject. For example, a team of experts from UCSF argues that healthcare needs a “connected health record,” a much different animal than vendors like Epic are proposing.

The authors see today’s EHR as an “electronic file cabinet” which is poorly equipped to handle health activities and use cases such as shared care planning, genomics and personalized medicine, population health and public health, remote monitoring and sensors.

They contend that to create an interoperable healthcare ecosystem, we will need to move far beyond point-to-point, EHR-to-EHR connections. Instead, they suggest adding connections with patients and family caregivers, non-clinical providers such as school clinics for youth and community health centers. (They do agree with Faulkner that incorporating data on social determinants of health is important.)

Their connected health record ties more professionals together and adapts to new models of care. It would foster connections between primary care physicians, multiple specialists, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, laboratories, public health registries and new models of care such as ACOs. It would be adaptive rather than reactive.

For example, if the patient at home with cancer gets a fever, her temperature data would be transmitted to her primary care physician, her oncologist, her home care nurse and family caregiver. The care plan would evolve based on the recommendations of team members, and the revised vision would be accessible automatically to the entire care team. “A static, allegedly comprehensive health record misses the dynamics of an interactive, learning health system,” the authors say.

All that being said, this model still appears to be at the vision stage. Perhaps given its backing, the comprehensive health record seems to be getting far more attention. And arguably, attempting to integrate a good deal more data on patients into an EHR could be beneficial.

However, both models are largely untested, and both beg the question of whether building more content on an EHR skeleton can lead to transformation. On the other hand, while the concept of a connected health record is attractive, my sense is that the components needed to this happen have not matured yet.

Ultimately, it will be clinicians who decide which model actually works for them, not vendors or abstract thinkers. Let’s see which model makes the most sense to them.

Some Important Tips On Telemedicine Security

Posted on March 22, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Recently, WEDI released a paper offering a pretty basic overview of the main categories of telemedicine services. From my standpoint, most of the paper wasn’t that new and exciting, one section had some interesting suggestions worth sharing. While you’ve probably heard some of them before, you probably haven’t seen the full package they shared.

First, WEDI provided some general principles providers should consider when delivering telehealth services, including that all interactions should be conducted through a secure transmission channel and that privacy notices must be displayed or easy to find on the telehealth site. Makes sense but not earthshattering.

Where things got interesting was when WEDI went through its own telemedicine security Q&A. Its feedback on key topics included the following:

  • Make sure you have a policy addressing provider-to-provider disclosures of HIPAA-protected information which is gathered via telemedicine consult.
  • Secure all telemedicine data. Verify and authenticate user identities and their authority levels before patient treatment, possibly through the log-in process. This could include making sure that there’s a one-to-one match with the person logging in to view the data being retained.
  • Set up standards for data storage and retention, as well as establishing policies, procedures and auditability for access, use and transfer of telemedicine-related PHI. Afterward, monitor compliance with those standards.
  • Decide how telehealth data breaches will be handled, and who will be responsible for doing so. Determine who will be notified when a breach occurs, what the timeline is for doing so and who else might need be notified. Also, identify what experts should be part of a breach response process, such as legal, information security and public affairs representatives, and make sure they know what their roles are if a breach takes place.
  • Bear in mind that any technology used for providing telemedicine services needs to be included in your HIPAA risk assessment.

Unless you work for a large organization, you probably won’t dig into security issues this deeply. Particularly if you work for a smaller practice with ten or fewer clinicians, you may end up outsourcing your entire IT function, including security and privacy protection.

However, it’s important to remember that members of your organization are ultimately responsible for any security violations, whether or not a contractor was involved in permitting the breach to happen.

It’s important that at a minimum, you have a security protection and incident response process in place — going well beyond “call the IT consultant” — that protects both patients and your practice from needless health data breaches. As you add telemedicine to the mix, make sure your process embraces that data too.

Patient Demand For Digital Health Tools May Exceed Providers’ Ability To Deliver

Posted on March 15, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

It’s taken a long time, but it looks like consumers are getting serious about using digital tools to improve their health. According to a new survey by Accenture, in some cases consumers are actually more interested in using such tools than their providers are, researchers found.

Patients are taking advantage of a wide range of digital health options, including mobile tech (46%), accessing electronic health records (38%), social media (35%), wearable technology (33%), smart scales (27%), remote consultations (16%) and remote monitoring (14%). All of these numbers are up from 2017, notably mobile and access to electronic health records, use of which grew 10% and 9% respectively.

The survey also notes that the number of consumers receiving virtual healthcare services has increased since last year, from 21% in 2017 to 25% this year. Seventy-four percent of those accessing virtual care were satisfied with the encounter. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of consumers said they would use virtual care for after-hours appointments, and about two-thirds would choose this option for follow-up appointments after seeing a doctor in person.

Key takeaways for clinicians, meanwhile, include that while patients agree that in-person visits provide quality care, engage patients in their health care decisions and diagnose problems faster, virtual visits offer some significant advantages too. Virtual care benefits they identified include reducing medical costs to patients, accommodating patient schedules and providing timely care, respondents said.

Clinicians should also note that AI-based virtual doctors may someday become the competition. When asked whether they would use an AI virtual doctor provided by their provider, some were doubtful, with 29% saying they prefer visiting the doctor, 26% that they didn’t understand enough about how AI works, and 23% that they did not want to share their data.

However, 47% said they would choose a virtual doctor because it would be available whenever they needed it. Also, 36% said they’d use a virtual doctor because it would save time by avoiding a trip to the doctor, and 24% said they’d like to access a virtual doctor because the AI would have access to large amounts of relevant information.

Right now, it’s far more likely that hospitals will have the capacity to deliver such services, which may demand a higher level of IT expertise and staff time that many medical practices have available. Nonetheless, it seems likely that at some point, medical practices will need to offer more digital services if they want to remain competitive.